Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-20
Gnnreme Cnnrf.

George SchaufieId ct al. vs.. TiIman P
Turney; appeal from Rask county. This
suit was instituted BY appellee against
the Supreme Lodge of The Knights OF
Honor, to recover $4,000, the amount fol-
which that society mad issued benef
certificate to David Schsufeld, made pay
able to appellee. The lodge answered
among other things that it was willing to
pay the amount to whomsoever it might
be due. 1t further answered that SChau.
field left wife and four children, all still
living, who claim to be entitled to the
money, and prayed that they be made
parties to the cause and be compelled to
litigate therein their claim to the certif
cate. The widow and children were &C
cordingly brought into court and answer.
ed to plaintiffs petition. His answer
WAS signed by T. B. Sexton as
attorney for the widow and minor
children, and he was subse quently
appointed by the court guardian, ad
litem, for the minors, and represented
them to the termination of the suit be.
low. Judgment was rendered in favor q
the plaintiff against the lodge for $4,000
and against the widow and minors that
they take nothing by their intervention,
and that plaintiff recover the costs in
cured by reason of their having inter.
vened ii the suit. A motion for new
trial having been overruled, the inter.
Venors gave notice of appeal to this court
No appeal bond has been executed within
the proper time, but on July s, 1887, the
guardian, ad litem, fled a petition for q
writ of error upon which citation issued
and was duly served, but no bond either
for costs or supersedess was filed
The appeal, if properly perfected, was
returnable to the last term OF
this court. The defendant in error
moves to dismiss the writ of error. He
urges that no writ OF error csn be prose-
cuted by minors without supersedeas or
cost bond or substitute therefor through
their guardian sd Item. Held: This
ground OF the motion is untensble.
guardian ad litem comes within the
puTview of Article l408, Revised Statutes,
which provides that executors, admin
istrators and guardians appointed by the
courts OF this state shall not be required
to give bond on Gny appeal or writ of
error taken by them in their flduciary
capacity" 1t is also urged that the
fceurt improperly appointed guardian
ad litem for these minors, because they
stood in the attitude of plaintiffs and not
of defendants in the cause, and our
statutes make no provision for the
appointment of guardian
Of this kind except for a minor defend
ant. Held: The guardian was properly
sppointed; the minors did not come into
court voluntarily IS plaintiff always
does, but they were brought into court
by process of law upon application of and
by the parties to the suit. It is further
objected that the appeal taken by the
guardian having been abandoned after it
was perfected he has no right to prose-
cute writ of error. Held: It has been
the constant practice of this court when
appeals have been dismissed for want of
prosecution TO entertain writs of error to
the same Judgment; this is precisely
the case before US, and the motion can't
prevail on that ground. It is said that
the citation in error does not
describe the judgment as it is
described in the petition in
error. This objection is borne out by
the record, and under the decisions OF
this court this is fatal to the citation. 1t
does not, however, dismiss the writ, as
the petition is good and another citation
may be sued cut upon it. AS no proper
citation has been served the case is i'm
perfect in this court, and it wi i be
stricken from the docket, and it is so
ordered. Wilson, j.